Hollywood romance movies and the infidelity double standard.
By Burbanked on Aug 22, 2008 in Movies, Views and Reviews | 969 views |
On our recent vacation, the Mrs. and I visited a local library in search of movies to watch at the ends of our sun-soaked and beach-weary days. One title that we happened across was the 2004 weeper The Notebook, which I had read at the time of its release to be a great romantic movie, a fun date night, and all of that other crap that movie marketers say when they desperately try to rope in a male audience for such things.
Let me get this straight off the bat: The Notebook is not a great movie, it’s not much fun, and is a pretty limp and contrived entry as far as rom-dramas go. And that’s not just my action-y male ego talking, either; wifey found it pretty lame as well.
But that’s not my point here. What I found fascinating about The Notebook was that it supports a long-standing notion about marriage and fidelity that Hollywood has been teaching us for decades:
When a woman has an affair, it’s romantic. When a man has an affair, it’s because he’s an asshole.
Don’t misunderstand: I’m certainly not complaining because I think movies should be made about men who seek romance outside of their marital vows. That notion doesn’t appeal to me and shouldn’t appeal to anyone else. I’m pointing out that the reasons and motivations and certainly the results of Hollywood movie affairs point up a double standard that has frankly bugged me for a very long time. Because not only are the women of cinematic affairs given right justification for their actions; but the movies in which the women cheat are often held up as historical classics of the genre.
And historically speaking, The Notebook is a feeble example. But I’ve got a bunch of others that aren’t.
Lots-o-spoilers. Deal with it.
In The Notebook, the character of Allie played by Rachel McAdams has a long romantic attachment to Noah (Ryan Gosling) that is complicated and destroyed by her meddling parents. Years later, when she’s engaged to another man, she cheats on her fiancé and has an affair with Noah.
And it’s created to be romantic. It’s sweet and gorgeous and we’re supposed to long for her to choose Noah and be with her one true soulmate. *sigh*…
But what about her fiancé? Is he a creep, a punk, a nasty or greedy or cruel or vindictive man? No, actually, he’s kind of swell. He’s a great guy and kind to her and bestows wonderful gifts and is romantic and actually an ideal husband.
Yet she cheats on him and dumps him and there is never an actual or suggested negative impact of her actions. This is of course because we want our protagonists to get together, we want a happy ending; but why does this so often have to be at the expense of another character - most often a man - who did nothing wrong?
Think about The Bridges of Madison County. This is a story in which a pair of siblings discover their mother’s diary in which she details a passionate affair she had years ago with a photographer who drifted into town for a few days, heated things up and then left forever.
And why does Francesca have an affair? Because she’s bored. She’s a foreigner in an isolated home and her husband is a dullard. Let me put an even finer point on that: he’s a bore, a nothing, perhaps kind of a doofus - but he is not a bad person in any way! Yet somehow it’s deemed to be romantic that she violates her marital vows to him and embarks on the Greatest Love of Her Life.
Now I understand that these movie stories are designed to create drama, conflict, passion and excitement. I get that the inherent conflict of an extramarital affair makes for a better story than a happily married couple off on a trip to the supermarket together.
But why do the men in these stories have to be treated with such miserable disrespect?
What wrong does Katherine’s husband perpetrate in The English Patient that sends her into the arms of another man? Why should Charlotte’s vapid boredom in Lost In Translation be enough of a reason to send her searching elsewhere for a connection? What’s so bad about Danny Aiello in Moonstruck that he should be humiliated by having his fiancée cheat on him?
There are other, “justifiable” examples, of course: Karen’s husband in Out of Africa gives her syphilis, so he doesn’t deserve our sympathy. Jenna’s husband in Waitress slaps her so she should be allowed to cheat. But still, it always occurs to me in these movies that the women end up compounding a bad marriage situation by making unconscionable extramarital choices of their own. They choose these affairs and are rewarded with great, life-fulfilling romantic adventures!
Well, at least Hollywood gives the men the same treatment. Oh wait, no they don’t. Cinematic men aren’t allowed to seek romance outside of marriage.
I know this because the guy in Match Point murders several people to cover up his frisky indiscretion. And because Tom Cruise is “tricked” into what he believes will be a harmless bit of infidelity, but which leads to life-threatening results in The Firm. Or because Harrison Ford cheats on his wives in Presumed Innocent and What Lies Beneath and in both cases his mistress is murdered which complicates his life.
And of course we can’t forget the poster boy for Cautionary Tales of Adultery, Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction in which a frivolous jaunt into Flingville leads to danger, kidnapping, attempted murder and bunnycide.
Again, the lesson from Hollywood comes across as this: men cheat because they’re horny and they deserve to be punished. Women cheat because they’re unfulfilled and deserve to be given wondrous love. And we as date-moviegoing audiences tend to eat all of this right up.
Because Hollywood movies have such a long history of cheating spouses, I’ll admit that some notable exceptions exist. To Die For focuses on a woman who ruthlessly cheats, with tragic results. Unfaithful is the most obvious recent example of a cinematic heroine who cheats for all the wrong reasons and pays dearly for it (although technically, she does not pay for it - but the men do, in spades). The Last Seduction, Body Heat - these feature women who cheat for ulterior motives and entirely not for the sake of romance.
But the big difference is that it’s damn near impossible to find a movie in which we’re expected to be sympathetic when a man commits adultery because he’s searching for love. In fact the only one I can think of is Brokeback Mountain - an entirely ironic example because of why the husbands cheat in the first place, as well as the fact that it goes so horribly wrong for pretty much everyone concerned when they do.
Ultimately, I’m feeling as though Hollywood simply doesn’t want any of my XY-challenged brethren to love as passionately or completely as women are encouraged and allowed to do. If they try, they end up stalked, dead, guilty, miserable or simply alone.
Kind of like Rick in Casablanca - the standard-bearer of Hollywood romantic movies - you know, the one where the love of his life returns, consequence-free, to her cuckolded husband.
So what do you think? Are the needs of men treated unfairly in movie romance stories or am I just being overly sensitive? Or is the fact that I’m even asking that question mean that I’m being overly sensitive?
Dedicated screenwriting 101 here: From an interview with Harrison Ford on the MTV Movies Blog in which the inevitability of another Indiana Jones movie is mentioned:
How do I get out of this? I love going to the movies with my boys, opening up their minds to the great pleasures of cinema and all that, but this is a hard one. Please help me: do I suck it up and just go, or can anyone out there provide me with a plausible, kind-hearted, permanent way out? (
© Copyright
Tony | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
I don’t like or watch romantic dramas. But I think your argument is sort of odd for the simple reason that when social scientists study marriage and why people are unfaithful to their vows, they find pretty much what you’re complaining about here. Men in relationships cheat because they’re bored with the sex or not getting enough of it, women in relationships cheat because they feel unloved.
I don’t think there’s any kind of pro-woman conspiracy in Hollywood (as if, guys) - I think it’s probably just that “Cheating to get laid” isn’t very cinematic and is awfully hard to make remotely sympathetic for two hours.
Burbanked | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
You’re right, Tony, that cinemative cheating tends to be reflective of societal reasons for infidelity.
But you’ve missed my point. In these movies, the women are more or less absolved of any culpability, moral or otherwise. Their indiscretions are all but rewarded by the love that they get to experience, often at the expense of their husbands or betrothed who have done nothing else wrong except for being not the leading man of the movie.
We can certainly throw our hands up and say that people are simply going to cheat and there’s nothing we can do about it. But maybe that’s because we seem so reluctant anymore to hold anyone accountable for their actions. The idea that women are supposed to be forgiven and rewarded for cheating “because they felt unloved” is truly not a responsible way to look at such a problem.
Saint | Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
THANK YOU. I had the exact same reaction to The Notebook.
The film that comes instantly to mind is Thelma & Louise which, for some reason, is still touted as a feminist film. (I maintain it is more about Butch and Sundance in drag than sexual politics.) Thelma almost being raped didn’t stop her from cheating on her husband. Because it was with Brad Pitt we were supposed to cheer?
It’s all about the intended audience.
If you want to sell a movie to women, include a female character split between two perfect men. Because what a woman “wants” is one man to be the sensible provider and another to exist on her love.
When selling to a man, your protagonist should be a male women throw themselves at. Because what a man “wants” is women who throw themselves at him.
Carlo Conda | Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
What about Liar Liar? Poor Chip, I think his name was.
I also think a big movie you should think about when writing about this is the amazing American Beauty. Spacey cheated on his wife. He actually cheated on her for a silly reason too, and we knew he was being a free-spirited goofball, but we loved it. He was clearly making a decision that was selfish, but that was fine with us because we knew that he needed to be a little selfish and let his spirit blow in the wind.
American Beauty is an oddball, though. Spacey does go kersplat in the end, too, and the cheerleader doesn’t give him true love either. That’s not what the movie is about, but I have to say I was rooting for Spacey’s affair and booing the wife’s affair.
Burbanked | Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
Saint: That’s a good point about Thelma and Louise; I’d kind of forgotten about that. Thelma’s husband in that movie falls into the “thoughtless jerk” category, so we’re not supposed to feel like he deserves her fidelity, I guess.
Carlo: I had contemplated including American Beauty, but it breaks the mold in a few ways. First of all, the wife cheats for certainly non-traditional wife reasons, but there’s certainly nothing romantic about it. And while Spacey cheats in his fantasies, does he ever fully complete the act in reality? It seems to me that the cheerleader puts on the brakes and it doesn’t quite happen. But I could be remembering it wrong because I’m not much of a fan of that film.
One thing for certain about it, though: the infidelity is treated a bit more rationally and realistically: married people harming their spouses for reasons of anger or spite or their own personal unfulfillment, not because they’re searching for love or understanding.
Ray | Aug 24, 2008 | Reply
You’re exactly right, of course.
The main reason why this disparity exists is because men are not supposed to look for love. It runs contrary to the supposed definition of masculinity that a man would long for love and romantic fulfillment. We’re supposed to be jackrabbits, wholly consumed with penetration and ejaculation.
Which are nice, of course. But it is humiliating and dehumaizing to be generalized like that, too.
It’s kind of like the disparity in public restrooms. I have always grumbled that women have nice, private stalls at public venues into which they can deposit their wastes, but men are forced to piss next to each other. Some places require us to piss into a trough while staring at each other’s equipment. And let’s not even mention shitting in public. It’s like were animals or something … and the funny things is, these concepts were probably invented by MEN.
Out in Hollywood, the guys running the show out there are simply trying to appeal to the largest audience available, so they concoct this “romance” bullshit in order to bring in the women. But in so doing, they perpetuate the myths that continue to cloud our existences as men. Pretty dumb.
End of rant.
Burbanked | Aug 25, 2008 | Reply
Ray: I suppose that the men-as-jackrabbits stereotype is fine to some extent because there is truth there, but you’d think that we could list a handful of movies where some thoughtful film artist figured out a different, acceptable way for a man to show such conflict, longing, whatever.
Ah never mind. I think I need a beer and a raucous sporting event on my big screen TV. And power tools.
Sulu at the Helm | Aug 25, 2008 | Reply
I think we’re all missing a larger point here. Chick movies suck! They suck, suck, suck, suck, suck! Is there any better reason to explain why they carry on this stupid romantic notion that women are justified in cheating and that it’s somehow romantic and liberating and without any consequences that might hurt other people who’s lives and feelings might just be as important as some flea-brained heroine who’s somehow justified in making these decisions either to make up for her previous boneheaded life choices or because she’s a bit bored with life, so unlike the rest of the population that apparently is thrilled with the prospect of toiling away in some joyless job just to come home to an adulterous skank who’s bangin’ some effeminate loser because she thinks he’s sensitive when he’s really just a balless wuss? These movies suck cause they’re supposed to suck cause that’s what brings the chicks in along the men who honestly believe it’s worth sitting through this kind of crap just to “get some” later. What better explains why one half of the population is so relieved to watch movies where dudes shoot crap up and blow up things real good? Cause it’s payback. We go to action flicks for the villians. Cause we know that even when we have to say goodbye to our favorite baddies who have made life so interesting and brought us so much entertainment only to end up riddled with bulets, blown up or thrown off the top of a skyscraper, that guy has found his reward because he will never again have to hear something like, “Honey, let’s go see that new film about the older women who learns to love again by having an affair with the sensitive guy who runs an animal adoption agency.” They have their fantasies. We have ours.
Marilyn | Aug 25, 2008 | Reply
I’ve got a little bit different take on this that I’m expending a lot of brain power on right now in writing an essay. The idea that women cheat because their husbands drive them to it is simply another way of desexing women. Women generally cheat for the same reasons men do, but in Hollywood, it’s not ok to give women the same sexual agency as men. It is the men who make these films who feed the myth that women are the more emotionally connected sex, and force both women and men to deny their sexuality and emotionality, respectively. Remember, the novel The Bridges of Madison County was written by a man.
Burbanked | Aug 25, 2008 | Reply
Marilyn, I basically agree with you, but if men are primarily responsible for Hollywood “romance” movies such as Bridges, who is the primary audience that turns out for them? Who makes such movies and others cited above into romantic “classics” when the infidelity themes are so similar throughout?
And I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure that Sulu At the Helm above is having ANY trouble expressing his emotionality. Dude needs a muzzle.
Marilyn | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
The Bridges of Madison County is a good movie that has an idealized view of romance uncluttered by the appearance of Streep’s husband. In that sense, the film/book are very much in the Harlequin Romance tradition. Yes, women read these books and see these movies, but we’re taught from an early age that getting married is the greatest and most beautiful thing that can happen to us. We’re given dolls to train to be mommies. Gender-role assignments happen to boys and girls at an early age. It doesn’t really have anything to do with what ought to be. The myth-makers in Hollywood like it this way.
Piper | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
This is good work, Alan. And a good point.
I myself cannot get into a movie if infidelity is involved, unless of course it’s a porn. And then I find that my kink meter hits 11.
But seriously, folks. Call me old-timey but I found no romance in Unfaithful or in The Horse Whisperer. I think what makes it disturbing is that men do it because they’re horny but when women do it, it’s for love.
Burbanked | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
Piper: On behalf of your no doubt frequently eye-rolling wife, thanks for the intel.
Unfaithful is pretty much straight-up non-romance adultery-drama, but as I mention above, I think it’s interesting that the woman is the one who cheats yet she’s the ONLY one who doesn’t pay a price for it. Isn’t that somewhat of an approval for her act which leads to murder and guilt and misery for everyone else? Or is that simply Adrian Lyne stretching out his controversy welcome?
I never saw Horse Whisperer. What’s the “motivation” behind the cheating there?